IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rohc] TCP/IP EPIC profile

"West, Mark (ITN)" <mark.a.west@roke.co.uk> Fri, 15 March 2002 00:35 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA05893 for <rohc-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 19:35:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA19258; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 19:28:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA19208 for <rohc@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 19:28:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from rsys000a.roke.co.uk (rsys000a.roke.co.uk [193.118.201.102]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id TAA05773 for <rohc@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 19:28:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: by rsys001a.roke.co.uk with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1XV9B4R1>; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 00:25:33 -0000
Received: from roke.co.uk (ras_fennel2.roke.co.uk [193.118.206.44]) by rsys002a.roke.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GZCWHJ6V; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 00:25:26 -0000
From: "West, Mark (ITN)" <mark.a.west@roke.co.uk>
To: "Hongbin Liao (Intl Staffing)" <i-hbliao@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Per Synnergren (EPL)" <Per.Synnergren@epl.ericsson.se>, rohc@ietf.org
Message-ID: <3C9120BE.2080204@roke.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 22:14:22 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rohc] TCP/IP EPIC profile
References: <F4C77846CEE593418BE5AB7B6A83111E046521B5@bjs-msg-01.fareast.corp.microsoft.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary"
Sender: rohc-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: rohc-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Robust Header Compression <rohc.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org


Hongbin Liao (Intl Staffing) wrote:

> Hi, Mark
> 
>     I'am refining the EPIC TCP/IP profile these days. I am not so clear 
> about the TCP options processing in the profile. The question is how 
> EPIC handle multi-occurances TCP NOP options since we found, for at 
> least two popular TCP/IP stack implementations, there are at least 3~4, 
> or more, occurances of TCP NOP options in one TCP/IP packet when 
> Timestamp and/or SACK options are used. Would u give some comments 
> and/or examples on it?
> 


Add more NOP options to the LIST encoding.  And increase the 'presence' 
and 'order' meta-field sizes to accommodate the extra data required.

Cheers,

Mark.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email